Recent macro-level studies examining the indirect effects of direct legislation on public policy in the American states are decidedly mixed. This study tests whether the macro-level logic of legislative behavior in response to ballot initiatives holds true at the micro-level for individual legislators. I examined the determinants of legislative votes on “counter-majoritarian” legislation—bills that directly challenge the outcomes of earlier statewide ballot initiatives. In 1999, the Colorado state legislature tried to overturn the outcomes of three previous ballot contests. I find that in two of the three cases, a legislator's vote on these bills was related to the vote in his or her district on the respective ballot initiative. This helps explain why many legislators will vote contrary to the outcome of a statewide initiative vote.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BarnettJames. 1915. The Operation of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall in Oregon. New York: MacMillan Co.
2.
BeardCharles. 1912. Introduction. In Charles Beard and Birl Shultz, Documents on the Statewide Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: MacMillan Co.
3.
BerkmanMichaelO'ConnorRobert. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” American Politics Quarterly21: 102–24.
4.
BowlerShaunDonovanTodd. 1998. Demanding Choices. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5.
CamobrecoJohn. 1998. “Preferences, Fiscal Policies, and the Initiative Process.” Journal of Politics60: 819–29.
6.
CroninThomas. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
7.
CroninThomasLoevyRobert. 1993. Colorado Politics and Government. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
8.
DavidsonRoger. 1969. The Role of the Congressman. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
9.
DonovanToddBowlerShaun. 1999. Direct Democracy and Gay Rights Initiatives after Romer. In RimmermanCraigWaldKennethWilcoxClyde, eds., The Politics of Gay Rights. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
DonovanToddBowlerShaun. 1998a. An Overview of Direct Democracy in the American States. In BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
11.
DonovanToddBowlerShaun. 1998b. “Direct Democracy and Minority Rights: An Extension.” American Journal of Political Science42: 1020–24.
12.
DonovanToddBowlerShaun. 1998c. Responsive or Responsible Government? In BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
13.
ElofsonStan. 2000. Initiatives and Referenda in the 1990s—An Update of Their Use. Issue Brief. Denver: Colorado Legislative Council Staff.
14.
EriksonRobertWrightGeraldMcIverJohn. 1993. Statehouse Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15.
FairbankRob. 1999. Colorado state representative. Personal interview. March 4.
16.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown.
17.
GambleBarbara. 1997. “Putting Civil Rights to a Popular Vote.” American Journal of Political Science91: 245–69.
18.
GerberElisabeth. 1996. “Legislative Response to the Threat of Popular Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science40: 99–128.
19.
GerberElisabeth. 1998. Pressuring Legislatures through the Use of Initiatives: Two Forms of Indirect Influence. In BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
20.
GerberElisabeth. 1999. The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
Haider-MarkelDonald. 1999. “Morality Policy and Individual-level Political Behavior: The Case of Legislative Voting on Lesbian and Gay Issues.” Policy Studies Journal22: 735–49.
22.
Haider-MarkelDonaldMeierKenneth. 1996. “The Politics of Gay and Lesbian Rights: Expanding the Scope of Conflict.” Journal of Politics58: 332–49.
23.
HolbrookThomasVan DunkEmily. 1993. “Electoral Competition in the American States.” American Political Science Review87: 955–62.
24.
KesselheimAlan. 1999. “Montana: State Senate says voters weren't very smart.” High Country News. 31 (March 15): 6.
25.
LambornDoug. 1999. Colorado state senator. Personal interview. March 2.
26.
LascherEdwardHagenMichaelRochlinSteven. 1996. “Gun Behind the Door? Ballot Initiatives, State Policies and Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics. 58: 760–75.
27.
LeybaGloria. 1999. Colorado state representative. E-mail correspondence. May 18.
28.
MaglebyDavid. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
MalbinMichaelBenjaminGerald. 1992. Legislatures After Term Limits. In MalbinMichaelBenjaminGerald, eds., Limiting Legislative Terms. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30.
MatsusakaJohn. 1995. “Fiscal Effects of the Voter Initiative: Evidence from the Last 30 Years.” Journal of Political Economy103: 587–623.
31.
MayhewDavid. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
32.
MunroWilliam, ed. 1912. The Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. New York: Appleton and Co.
33.
PitkinHanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Rohrlich, 1999. Calls for Prop. 13 Revisions Gain Momentum,Los Angeles Times (online edition), March 14.
35.
RosenthalAlan. 1998. The Decline of Representative Democracy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
36.
SchmidtDavid. 1989. Citizen Lawmakers: The Ballot Initiative Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
37.
SchragPeter. 1998. Paradise Lost: California's Experience, America's Future. New York: The New Press.
38.
SmithDaniel. 1998. Tax Crusaders and the Politics of Direct Democracy. New York: Routledge.
39.
SmithDanielHerringtonRobert. 2000. “The Process of Direct Democracy: Colorado's 1996 Parental Rights Amendment.” Social Science Journal37: 179–94.
40.
StimsonJamesMacKuenMichaelEriksonRobert. 1995. “Dynamic Representation.” American Political Science Review89: 543–65.
41.
ThomasSue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics53: 958–75.
42.
ThomasSueWelchSusan. 1991. “The Impact of Gender on Activities and Priorities of State Legislators.” Western Political Quarterly44: 445–56.
43.
TolbertCaroline. 1998. Changing Rules for State Legislatures: Direct Democracy and Governance Policies. In BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
44.
TolbertCarolineHeroRodney. 1996. “Race/Ethnicity and Direct Democracy: An Analysis of California's Illegal Immigration Initiative.” Journal of Politics58: 806–18.
45.
TolbertCarolineLowensteinDanielDonovanTodd. 1998. Election Law and Rules for Using Initiatives. In BowlerShaunDonovanToddTolbertCaroline, eds., Citizens as Legislators. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
46.
WilcoxDelos. 1912. Government by All the People. New York: MacMillan Co.
47.
WlezienChristopher. 1995. “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending.” American Journal of Political Science39: 981–1000.
48.
ZaxJeffrey. 1989. “Initiatives and Government Expenditures.” Public Choice63: 267–77.
